The one engine provider issue - Causing some pain

All about the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the (cancelled) General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3146
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post05 Jan 2006, 21:56

Man, I hope this doesn't make things bad for Gen Jumper. He went to work for Rolls. :)

Guys what is the potential fallout from the one engine maker thing going to be? I am curious on opinions from the experts here.

Blair writes to Bush on JSF deal

At issue is a Pentagon plan, reported last week but in the works for more than a month, to kill a $2.4bn General Electric Co -Rolls-Royce Plc contract to develop an alternate turbofan engine for the fighter.

Pratt & Whitney, a United Technologies Corp unit, is building the engine that will go in the first F-35s, a family of single-engine, radar-evading aircraft being built by Lockheed Martin Corp.

Proponents of an alternate engine have cited potential savings through competition. They also describe it as a hedge against having to ground the fleet in case of engine trouble. But developing a second engine has boosted development costs, something the Pentagon is under pressure to pare.

Source: http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Displa ... 533229.xml


Also...

Pratt May Corner Market On F-35 Engines
January 5, 2006 - Pentagon Plans To End Competing Development Program For Powering Fighter Jet, Sources Report

Source: http://www.courant.com/business/hc-join ... s-business


And of course:

Pentagon plans to end a competing engine development program for the JSF
January 5, 2006 - The Pentagon, seeking to curb expenses in the $256 billion Joint Strike Fighter program, plans to make Pratt & Whitney the sole supplier of engines for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet by ending a competing engine development program.

Source: http://www.f-16.net/news_article1573.html
- ELP -
Offline

The_Mastiff

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2005, 13:45
  • Location: Raleigh NC

Unread post05 Jan 2006, 23:56

Is Blair offering to spend US money or is there any offer of added funds from the UK's coffers? It likely would be a good engine but if the US needs to cancel it to save money then that's the way it goes. It's apparent that IF the F35 makes it to production the number sold will be much less than originally planned. Probably not enough to make 2 engines viable. A good idea in my opinion looking at only the F35 program, not any other possible customers that MIGHT pan out later for the F136. JL Raleigh NC
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3146
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post06 Jan 2006, 16:09

Someone might have been afraid of there being big mouth and small mouth airframes :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ( The result of when the government trys to improve things: F-16: "We need two engine vendors for supply chain management strength"..... "Great idea"... "Wait a sec..... now we have two different airframe types within a type..... " ) :lol: :lol: :lol:
- ELP -
Offline

TenguNoHi

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 920
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2004, 04:24

Unread post06 Jan 2006, 16:12

Any people who work on, with or drive F-16s out there dissapointed in this? With the popularity with the GE in the Viper and all?

-Aaron
Offline

NVGdude

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 87
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 18:01

Unread post06 Jan 2006, 16:17

"I'm not dead yet"

See article in AvLeak.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c ... E01056.xml

Because the F136 engine is largely the product of the U.S. Congress - which aimed to keep engine competition alive - it is expected by both Pentagon and aerospace industry officials that lawmakers will step in and add money to keep the program in existence.

-Mark
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3146
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post06 Jan 2006, 16:57

NVGdude wrote:"I'm not dead yet"

See article in AvLeak.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c ... E01056.xml

Because the F136 engine is largely the product of the U.S. Congress - which aimed to keep engine competition alive - it is expected by both Pentagon and aerospace industry officials that lawmakers will step in and add money to keep the program in existence.

-Mark


Good catch NVG.. just saw that and you beat me too it :)

Yeah... now time for ye 'ol political football.
- ELP -
Offline

snypa777

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1527
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 02:00

Unread post06 Jan 2006, 17:14

If the F-136 is finally read it`s last rites, it is not going to kill any of the "big three" engine manufacturers. With a rival engine it may harm Pratt more than GE or RR though. As I understand it, the F-136 will offer more thrust than the F-135.

GE input into the `136 is 50 percent, RR is 40 percent. Blair wants RR to have a hand in these engines through business and UK operational needs. Our Harriers have serious weight/thrust/payload issues we don`t want to see repeated in the JSF.

With serious backing from congress and intense "special relationship" lobbying from Blair, there may be life in the F-136 yet!
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Offline

LordOfBunnies

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 588
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005, 05:28
  • Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Unread post06 Jan 2006, 19:00

HAHA I rthink GE would love to get rid of RR on the engine. This is of course listening to my mom complain about the stuff coming out of RR. Thus, I'm just joking around. GE's always seem to be awesome engines and I really haven't heard complaints about them. Um, snypa did you do the math right? There seems to be 10% of the engine that is missing. Well, we'll just see how much sway the Brits have in the jet. Now elp, did you mean soccer or real football ;). Anyway, how much similarity do the F135 and F136 engines share with the F119 and F120 (I believe those are the right numbers)? I know the 135 and 136 were based on the 22's engines.
Peace through superior firepower.
Back as a Student, it's a long story.
Offline

snypa777

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1527
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 02:00

Unread post07 Jan 2006, 02:29

Haha! `Bunnies! Forgot about your family connection! 8)
The missing ten percent is made up of "other international partners". Didn`t think it was worth mentioning! Well, UK companies already have an input into the design and will supply many components. The UK also supplies components for the F-22. These are all well documented. Even GE want RR on board to shoulder some of the costs. Some politics may might have played a part as well.
Yes, GE are THE big players on the engine but Blair wouldn`t be busy writng letters to George Dubya if it wasn`t worth something to RR!
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Offline

snypa777

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1527
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 02:00

Unread post07 Jan 2006, 02:31

Some typos in my above post but I just got in from the pUB!!!! Meant to say, Uk companies will supply stuff for the JSF as well as F-22.
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Offline

FoxFour

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 14:45

Unread post09 Jan 2006, 19:48

Even if there's no $$ to complete F136 development, you could still have competition on engine (F135) production, like the Navy did with the F404 during the '80s - they had Pratt qualify as second source on the F404 and compete with GE for follow on production lots (same thing with Hughes/Raytheon on Amraam). The engine companies won't be happy with this type of arrangement, but that's better than being shut out of the program completely... and the spares market. Course that wouldn't solve the problem of a systemic engine problem grounding the whole fleet...
Offline

229guy

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 23:40
  • Location: Moody AFB

Unread post09 Jan 2006, 20:43

The F-15 has been Pratt powered for how long? Where is there GE engine? You do not need two engine company's for an airframe and the F-15 is proof of that. :2c:

Yes I know you could modify another engine to fit but lets not go there!
If it starts, performs, burns and returns, Engine troops made it happen!
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2632
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Jan 2006, 04:34

No one wants all there eggs in one basket! Its all just politics and the F-136 will survive. Thought the UK will have to keep the pressure on and the US Congress will have to find alittle more money................ :?
Offline

229guy

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 23:40
  • Location: Moody AFB

Unread post13 Jan 2006, 21:14

Corsair1963 wrote:No one wants all there eggs in one basket! Its all just politics and the F-136 will survive. Thought the UK will have to keep the pressure on and the US Congress will have to find alittle more money................ :?


What about the F-16, F-22, A-10, F-15, F-117, B-1, B-2, F-117, B-52 .....Looks scrambled to me...Its not like the F-35 is going to be the only aircraft to fly...So we ground the whole fleet of F-35's with engine problems, So what there are others that can handle it. What if we ground the entire fleet for avionics/mechanical problems than what?
If it starts, performs, burns and returns, Engine troops made it happen!
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2632
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Jan 2006, 02:19

229guy wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:No one wants all there eggs in one basket! Its all just politics and the F-136 will survive. Thought the UK will have to keep the pressure on and the US Congress will have to find alittle more money................ :?


What about the F-16, F-22, A-10, F-15, F-117, B-1, B-2, F-117, B-52 .....Looks scrambled to me...Its not like the F-35 is going to be the only aircraft to fly...So we ground the whole fleet of F-35's with engine problems, So what there are others that can handle it. What if we ground the entire fleet for avionics/mechanical problems than what?



You lost me here? The fleet of aircraft that you listed fly with either P & W and/or GE Engines. Early model F-16's flew with only P & W and had some developement issues. Later F-16 and much later F-15 had a GE Option. (i.e. F-110's) As a matter of fact the last two F-15 Strike Eagle orders both opted for GE Power Plants. Anyway you look at it choice is good! :D Besides it protects you if one of the engines occurs major problems......... :shock:
Next

Return to F-35 Engine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests